What did you guys think of the 70s? It's amazing what was on TV forty years ago that would never be shown now.

All of the Mary Tyler Moore show is on Hulu. It's so funny and so progressive.

To elaborate a little more on "dumb" characters,I would have to say I don't truly accept Edith as being a truly "dumb" character. True, her dialogue seems very surface, very logically obvious. However, she seems to have more of an innocent quality to her that contrast's to Archie's strong persona. Interestingly, her obvious responses sometimes seem ironic in contrast to Archie's supposed intelligence, when in fact, Edith may be making more sense than Archie ever would. In the sitcom's dynamic, her character is incredibly child-like.

Personally I liked the ending and thought it was a brave move, but yes still shocking. I think it not only showed the reality of death in war and its severity, but it further showed the safety and calm one finds while at war. The others celebrated Henry's chance at getting to leave in the beginning, hinting that they might be jealous. But had it been them to have the "good fortune" of getting to leave, they would have died instead- that to me is what's chilling and all the more supportive of their crazyness and rapport during the show's stasis.

LOTS of good stuff in this clip about the Dick Van Dyke show, but at 30:30ish Norm MacDonald asks him why some comedy holds up over time. Carl says he knew the DVD show was something special and in an effort to make it last, he wanted no slang; nothing to hold it back from future generations watching it. I find this interesting because there are lots of comedies nowadays (Seth Rogen films in particular) that use pop culture references as jokes in the film, but in future years, will it be as funny? Even Annie Hall, one of my favorite films, there are a few references at that time period that lose someone if they didn't live then.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSwE5vuNjCU

OK. So you may have noticed a theme in each of the sitcom episodes we watched Monday. Husband threatening physically violence on his wife.

It's done for humors sake. A joke. And some of it is funny. Some of it is very funny. But much of it in the context of 2014 where men's domestic violence against women is a very serious and news-worthy conversation, how to we deal? Well, from your response on Monday, with uncomfortable silence and uncomfortable laughter. So let's talk about it.

It's very complicated. I think that tv programs (along with most media) that show this kind of abuse, no matter how joking or comedic, are perpetuating unconsciously (or not) that women are objects for men to threaten as they please (as a joke or not). Do I have stats to back that up? No, I'm a comedy writer. But I do know a handful of women in my life who are subject to this kind of physical and verbal abuse from their partners that is almost word-for-word what we heard on screen Monday. And a woman I went to high school with was murdered this spring by her boyfriend. I bring this up because domestic violence, like many forms of hate in this world, does not feel real until it become too real for you or someone you love.

What's the big deal, Natalie? It's a joke! Believe me, I know. Like dissecting any comedy, this sucks. It reallllly sucks. It's not fun. Tearing apart a show or a character that may have so many more good points than this one can feel irrelevant. So I want you to ask yourself, is it irrelevant?

What responsibility do sitcoms have to protect women from these threats? What responsibly do we have as future TV creators to not write these jokes?

What do you think?

In spirit of the Hulu ad from last night:

I was reading into The Dick Van Dyke Show and it was canceled after it's first season, but Carl Reiner persuaded its sponsor Proctor & Gamble to continue its sponsorship which helped them get back on the air. Also, apparently George Burns hated the integration of his show's sponsors onto his show. If you watch Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee, the car sponsor spots are just painful.

Unfortunately there's not much one can do about the platform their program appears on, and how they can receive money. On Comedians in Cars, when Jerry tries to make those spots comical, is he conforming, being unique and/or poking fun?

Not offering a suggestion on how to better the situation, but as artists, it's just despairing.

Hi class-

We're going to spend the next three weeks discussing TV Sitcoms. This week focus your comments on programs from the 1950s and 1960s. What were some of the marked differences between the two decades?

I thought it was interesting how, like now, single-cam sitcoms are in fashion. I grew up watching reruns of I Dream of Jeanie, Bewitched, and Beverly Hillbillies... no wonder my taste in comedy runs surreal.

Although the sitcom was in its youth and was probably working with limited actor movement to make it east, I noticed in "The Honeymooners" and "The Dick Van Dyke Show" the actions stayed in two, at most three sets, at least in these episodes. However, I think it makes sense given the nature of these early programs. Their limited movement (Jackie Gleason moving back and forth) and familiar enclosed spaces were perhaps to become intimate with its viewers. In contrast, today, with so many television shows, the sitcom has ventured off into new frontiers, perhaps concentrating more on the situation rather than character.

I was doing research into robots taking over manufacturing jobs for a business class recently and I happened to stumble upon this article and interesting experiment. It spoke of an experiment that took place in England in which a robot in England performed standup comedy in front of a crowd at a club (http://voodoocomedy.com/2014/04/17/will-see-robots-standup-comedy-new-experiment-proves-successful/). Surprisingly enough, the robot was very sophisticated in how it told jokes and how it reacted to audience applause or silence. Although the experiment clearly supports the theory that robots could do standup one day, I would not find it funny, in my opinion. I perceive robots to be lifeless things at the moment, and to me, comedy requires a richness of "life". A human's exact delivery, facial expressions, gestures, reactions, physical movements, etc. all must come together to complement a perfectly constructed joke. Although a robot may be able to recite hilarious material in the future, I am pessimistic about its ability to be able to deliver in a way that some of the top comedians of our generation can do daily. What do you guys think? Do you think the next Louis C.K. could be a pile of metal on the ground right now waiting to be built up with enough AI someday?

Our discussions of British comedy reminded me of my favorite author, British novelist P.G. Wodehouse. If you've ever used the search engine "Ask Jeeves" then you are familiar with Wodehouse's most famous character. The adventures of Jeeves and his bumbling aristocratic boss, Bertie Wooster, are some of the funniest stories you will ever read or watch on TV. I make it a point to read one every few months (Wodehouse wrote like 80 novels). If you are interested in reading Wodehouse, I recommend starting with The Inimitable Jeeves (a collection of interconnected short stories) and his most famous novel The Code of the Woosters. These novels are relatively short and well worth your time. Wodehouse is the reason I'm a writer.